Use This Space To Ask Higher Order Questions That Could Spark An Engaging Discussion. Try to Mark Questions and Responses in Some Way. If You Want, Sign Your Name.
The New London Group stated "The challenge is to make space available so that different lifewords- spaces for community life where local and specific meaning can be made- can flourish." Has this challenged been conquered within the sixteen years since this article was written? If not, what are some examples of how this challenge has been addressed? (Kelly Anne Quinn)
The authors write that they are trying to create "educational programs that are based on a broad vision of the good life and an equitable society"; however, they also note that society as it exists right now is unequal, and that since our society so values wealth and status, that there will never be "enough room 'at the top'" for everyone. Given that society is unequal, do you think that it is even possible to create a plan for equitable education for all? (Erin McKenna)We think (Group 3) that, it is true that absolute equality is something that our society will most likely never be achieved, due to innate personal differences. There is no way to address the hierarchies that exist within society and the natural ambition that is found within many individuals. However, because this is something we all know and have tried to come to accept, it means that we can figure out a way to move past it. As teachers, we can strive for an equal standard within our classes. This is not to say that every education situation will be the same, as all students will not have access to the same supplies and all teachers will not have access to the same education. Some communities will always have more money to put towards their schools, and some schools will have the ability to have smaller class sizes than others which allows more individual attention. It is also important to note that success is defined differently within these types of societies. In order to create a society that will have an equitable education for all, there needs to be standards that are put into place in order to try to mainstream the ideas that are communicated to students. There needs to be a baseline, or a main goal, for the outcome of education, and this goals needs to continually rise. There are going to be schools that exceed or fail to meet these standards, but as long as there is a goal that is trying to be achieved by all, we believe that is the best way to try to work towards closing the achievement gap. There is nothing we can do in the forseeable future about the role of wealth and inequality in schools, but we can try to reach a middle ground as far as achievement goes.
Would teens be more motivated to read books if it were online?
Where does mathematical literacy in terms of understanding numbers and symbols fit into this argument of multiple literacies?
The article states: "The more autonomous lifeworlds become, the more movement there can be: people entering and leaving..." Is it possible to have an autonomous lifeworld or will multiliteracy cause the lifeworlds to blend into one entity? Is it better to teach to many different lifeworlds or should the curriculum be based on UDL (Universal Design for Learning) standards, teaching to one combination of students?
Currently, do you think lifeworlds are convergent or divergent? What do you think is better, or where should we eventually end up? What does the term "lifeworlds" include? Does it stop at culture/ethnicity/language etc. or can mediums for instruction be included as well? (for example, can the internet and learning/reading be combined successfully, especially when thinking about students with special needs?)
The article states: "Local diversity and global connectedness mean not only that there can be no standard..." Do you agree with this statement? The quote continues to say that one of the most important skills students can learn is to "negotiate regional, ethnic, or class-based dialects." Is a standard possible? Is it necessary to successfully teach all students fairly?
The article states: "The more autonomous lifeworlds become, the more movement there can be: people entering and leaving..." Is it possible to have an autonomous lifeworld or will multiliteracy cause the lifeworlds to blend into one entity? Is it better to teach to many different lifeworlds or should the curriculum be based on UDL (Universal Design for Learning) standards, teaching to one combination of students?
Currently, do you think lifeworlds are convergent or divergent? What do you think is better, or where should we eventually end up? What does the term "lifeworlds" include? Does it stop at culture/ethnicity/language etc. or can mediums for instruction be included as well? (for example, can the internet and learning/reading be combined successfully, especially when thinking about students with special needs?)
The article states: "Local diversity and global connectedness mean not only that there can be no standard..." Do you agree with this statement? The quote continues to say that one of the most important skills students can learn is to "negotiate regional, ethnic, or class-based dialects." Is a standard possible? Is it necessary to successfully teach all students fairly?